Because he chooses to believe in the superiority of empiricism to explain reality, the secular-scientist accepts the world-view of naturalism. He uses an inductive argument based on individual, scientifically demonstrated, “immutable” laws of nature and makes them to collectively become an idea he calls “Natural Law.” It is his belief that this “Natural Law” is the impersonal, governing agent, which brings order to the universe and makes the knowledge of reality possible. Because any violation of this “Natural Law” would destroy his entire world-view, he constructs a definition for the concept of miracles that automatically precludes their possibility. He dismisses the historical evidence of the occurrence of miracles, as being so inferior to the scientific evidence that they are impossible, that he claims the historical evidence is unworthy of any reasonable consideration in this matter. In the event one might still harbor a remnant of the faith once delivered to the saints, he then enlists the discipline of higher criticism to cast doubt upon the historical record of Scripture.
The Christian chooses to believe in the sovereignty of God to explain reality. He uses a deductive argument that begins with the God Who had the ability, desire and purpose for creating the physical universe. He believes in the necessity for universal order, but seeks to understand it as existing within the will and purpose of the Creator. Because all of reality exists within the will and purpose of God, when He decides that it serves His purpose, He may cause events to occur that ordinarily do not do so, without this occurrence abrogating the concept of universal order. The historical record of the many miracles found in Scripture adds validation to this belief.
For the secular scientist the greatest reality is “Natural Law” and all things exist within and are subject to it. For thw Christian the greatest reality is God and all things wxist within and are subject to Him.
.
This is key, how does one define science. I have written on this somewhat in a paper posted at SCRIBD:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34407776/Introduction-Technology-Junkies
But the main short point from this paper is this:
[quote]
....Let us see if we can ferret out Mr. Flemming’s starting premise with an interview with Dr. Dean Kenyon, Assistant Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University (Emeritus), when he was asked this question: “What are the general presuppositions that scientists make who study the origin of life?” Dr. Kenyon responded:
“Well, I think there are two general kinds of presuppositions that people can make, one is that life, in fact, did arise naturalistically on the primitive earth by some kind of chemical evolutionary process. The second presupposition would be that life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process. Now, if you have the first presupposition, then the goal of your research is to work out plausible pathways of chemical development to go to the bio-polymers, then to the protocells; and what would be likely pathways that you could demonstrate in the laboratory by simulation experiment. If you have the second presupposition, your still going to be doing experiments, but you’re going to be more open to the possibility that the data, as they [or, it] come[s] in from those studies may actually be suggesting a different explanation of origins altogether.”
The logical position, what I would say is the truly scientific way to look at these issues, is to say what Kenyon just did: “life may or may not have arisen by a naturalistic, chemical process.” He, in other words, did not beg the question. This embedded philosophy is what the fervor was over in Kansas a few years back. The Kansas Board of Education caused a firestorm by hearing the drafting board’s proposal to change one word in the working definition of science. The original drafting commission defined science as:
“Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
The Kansas board of education drafting committee defined science as,
“Science is the human activity of seeking logical explanations for what we observe in the world around us.”
This simple word change, and the subsequent fervor it caused, illustrates the embedded philosophy in current science....
[/quote]